Chilean Political Science Ranking discontinuation note

Since December 2019, our team has enthusiastically maintained the Chilean Political Science Ranking (CPS-Ranking), a quarterly assessment highlighting the scholarly impact of political scientists in Chile and those focused on Chilean topics through the measurement of their H-index based on Google Scholar profiles. Over five years, this initiative grew notably, starting modestly with 125 profiles and reaching 206 in our final edition in December 2024. This growth reflected genuine interest and recognition within the Chilean political science community, with scholars voluntarily joining or being recommended by their peers. We are deeply grateful for this engagement and the widespread support from researchers nationwide.

However, after careful consideration and thorough deliberation, we have decided to discontinue the Chilean Political Science Ranking starting in 2025. We believe transparency is essential, and thus, we wish to outline the reasons for this decision.

First, we have become increasingly aware of the methodological limitations of using the H-index as the primary measure of academic impact and relevance. Although the H-index is widely recognised and straightforward to interpret, it is limited in scope. Specifically, it privileges the quantity of citations over the quality and significance of the research. In addition, it tends to disadvantage scholars producing fewer but highly impactful works and favours those whose output and citation patterns align with massive, but not necessarily quality, publication dynamics. In practical terms, an academic with several heavily cited papers could have an equivalent or even lower H-index than another whose citations are dispersed across numerous less impactful works. This flaw does not correctly reflect the genuine intellectual contributions made by our scholarly community.

Furthermore, we have observed the inherent biases and inconsistencies that arise from relying on Google Scholar as our primary data source. While Google Scholar has democratised access to citation metrics by making them freely available, it has significant weaknesses. Its algorithm tends to inflate citation counts through duplicates and includes citations from sources that do not always meet rigorous academic standards. In this context, there have been isolated instances where profiles exhibited extremely inflated citation counts, driven either by technical inaccuracies or intentional manipulation, undermining the overall credibility and fairness of our ranking. This is a challenging situation beyond our control, and though there were few such cases, they highlighted vulnerabilities in our reliance on Google Scholar.

The absence of comprehensive alternatives accessible to our team compounds the challenges of accuracy and reliability inherent in Google Scholar. Despite their greater accuracy and rigorous standards, databases such as Web of Science or Scopus are restrictive due to their subscription format and limited coverage of Latin American scholarship. Consequently, without viable alternative sources that adequately represent Chilean political science research, we find ourselves constrained in improving the robustness and fairness of our ranking methodology, which demands time and resources that we could not cover.

In addition, the Chilean Political Science Ranking initiative has operated independently without institutional affiliation or formal support from universities or academic organisations, with limited support from the Training Data Lab as a research group. Despite the significant attention and positive feedback it has received from individual scholars, this lack of institutional support severely limits our operational sustainability and our capacity to ensure the methodological rigour and integrity required of such rankings. While the Chilean Political Science Association (Asociación Chilena de Ciencia Política, ACCP) or universities could have provided valuable backing, validation, or even outreach support, their absence has ultimately constrained the project’s potential.

It is crucial to underscore that our decision is not based solely on critique or methodological shortcomings but also on a broader reflection on the direction of scholarly recognition and academic merit. We recognise the growing international discussion about the need to move beyond simplistic metrics towards more comprehensive evaluations of academic merit and societal impact. Globally, academia is increasingly questioning metrics-driven evaluations, advocating instead for diversified approaches encompassing peer evaluations, qualitative assessments, and broader societal contributions.

In this context, we hope our decision encourages Chilean political science to reflect critically on how scholarly excellence is evaluated and recognised. We advocate for creating spaces where richer, more comprehensive evaluation criteria can be discussed, developed and implemented. Such criteria should adequately reflect the diversity, quality, originality, and societal relevance of research produced by Chilean scholars.

Finally, we sincerely thank every researcher who participated, contributed, or supported the Chilean Political Science Ranking initiative over these past five years. We believe this experience provided valuable insights into our scholarly community’s strengths and challenges, encouraging visibility and discussion around Chilean political science’s academic impact. While we discontinue this project, we remain committed to supporting initiatives that promote rigorous, fair and comprehensive recognition of scholarly work.

We invite institutions, academic societies, and universities to further engage in constructive discussions regarding academic evaluations and support initiatives that ensure Chilean scholarship’s fair representation and recognition at both national and international levels. Though our ranking concludes, the conversation about how we recognise and value scholarly contributions continues, and we are eager to support new and impactful avenues.